Quote:
You're quite wrong about WLC's motives
I am just giving you my thoughts on the context. I surely could be wrong about what WLC's motivations are. While I (obviously) don't think I am wrong I don't claim to be a soul reader or whatever. If you have information to make me think otherwise I am all ears.
Quote:
and quite wrong mentioning hand waving
okay to back pedal a bit here... I don't mean to accuse you of doing this I was intending to make a more general complaint about Christian culture. I give you credit for likely being more engaged in discussion on difficult topics than the average bear.
It would be a shame IF you saw WLC seemingly discredit Ehrman so now you don't bother to listen to anything Ehrman says. This is the type of mentality I see a lot among my peers which is really frustrating.
It seemed like you may be going in this direction by not really engaging in Ehrman's arguments but simply writing him off because "he has no credibility" in WLC's eyes.
Quote:
the variants that do exist in the NT are inconsequential relative to any doctrine. Please give one singe variant that impacts anything of importance.
I will give examples in a future post.
Quote:
But to think that what he says and the way he says it doesn't negatively affect some if not many Christians is naive.
I think the average Joe Christian's faith could use some challenging so I don't really see this as a bad thing. If I see a guy questioning the reliability of the bible then its a good thing if it makes me interested and gets me doing some homework.
I see Ehrman as an important catalyst for thought and discussion. What I see as the alternate is just a state of non critical thinking and blind consent.
Quote:
And when he is factually wrong I see nothing out of line in calling him on it. WLC does that and with his usual very civil manner, unlike the critics who attack him with slander, slurs, lies and exaggerations.
Yes its fine to call Ehrman out when WLC thinks he is wrong. I have already stated above what my objections are and it goes beyond just saying " hey I disagree with x". I like WLC generally and agree he is usually pretty classy.
Quote:
I don't deny, nor does anyone else, that Ehrman is good in his field of textual criticism
Okay thats good. So he does have plenty of credibility in his field right? You just disagree with his theology. I don't think Ehrman claims to be a theologian or philosopher.
Quote:
I have to add this: If you listened to the audio don't you remember the opening where WLC recounted the story of Ehrman being interviewed on radio in which he admitted that the NT text we have is pretty much what was in the original? If that's the case, how could those 400,000 variants matter?
I will give examples in a future post which may qualify as "mattering". This is a perfect quote of where I think a conversation would be more profitable than a one sided critical monologue. I am sure if Ehrman was there to explain his contrary statements he would do so.
In short, the variants do matter to meaning to some extent. More broadly the variants directly conflict with the doctrine of scripture being inerrant. How can we say the bible is inerrant when we don't even have the originals or have copies that confirm each other. I think the absolutist doctrine of biblical inerrancy is untenable for the reasons Ehrman posits.
How can we say these are the absolute exact inspired words of God when we don't even know some of the words? or we don't even know if some verses should be in there or not?